2012 May 29

Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Who Do Not Undergo Reperfusion.

May 292012

Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Who Do Not Undergo Reperfusion.

Am J Cardiol. 2012 May 23;

Authors: Wood FO, Leonowicz NA, Vanhecke TE, Dixon SR, Grines CL

Abstract
Reperfusion therapy reduces mortality in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI). However, some patients may not receive thrombolytic therapy or undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The decision making and clinical outcomes of these patients have not been well described. In this study, 139 patients were identified from a total of 1,126 patients with STEMI who did not undergo reperfusion therapy at a high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention center from October 2006 to March 2011. Clinical data, reasons for no reperfusion, management, and mortality were obtained by chart review. The mean age was 80 ± 13 years (61% women, 31% diabetic, and 37% known coronary artery disease). Of the 139 patients, 72 (52%) presented with primary diagnoses other than STEMI, and 39 (28%) developed STEMI >24 hours after admission. The most common reasons for no reperfusion were advanced age, co-morbid conditions, acute or chronic kidney injury, delayed presentation, advance directives precluding reperfusion, patient preference, and dementia. Eighty-four patients (60%) had ?3 reasons for no reperfusion. Factors associated with hospital mortality were cardiogenic shock, intubation, and advance directives prohibiting reperfusion after physician consultation. In hospital and 1-year mortality were 53% and 69%, respectively. In conclusion, at a high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention center, most patients presenting with STEMI underwent immediate catheterization. The decision for no reperfusion was multifactorial, with advanced age reported as the most common factor. Outcomes were poor in this population, and fewer than half of these patients survived to hospital discharge.

PMID: 22633204 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Link to Article at PubMed

Acute kidney injury in decompensated cirrhosis.

Gut Start a Discussion »

May 292012

Acute kidney injury in decompensated cirrhosis.

Gut. 2012 May 25;

Authors: Tsien CD, Rabie R, Wong F

Abstract
BackgroundHepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis with ascites is a well-defined entity with significant morbidity and mortality. It is unclear whether milder degrees of acute kidney injury (AKI), defined as a serum creatinine increase of over 26.4 ?mol/l (0.3 mg/dl) or by 50% from baseline, also has a negative impact on patient outcomes.ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence of AKI in cirrhosis with ascites and the impact of AKI on patient outcomes.DesignPatients with cirrhosis with ascites and baseline serum creatinine less than 110 ?mol/l, and no evidence of structural renal disease, prospectively underwent 4-6-weekly blood work-up for full blood count, biochemistry and liver function. Clinical assessments occurred every 4 months for the development of AKI and other complications.Results90 patients (mean age 55.8±0.8 years) with a mean follow-up of 14.05±1.07 months were enrolled. 82 episodes of AKI occurred in 49 patients, with the majority of episodes precipitated by a disturbance in systemic haemodynamics. The mean peak serum creatinine of the AKI episodes was within the laboratory's normal range. 73 episodes of AKI resolved; nine did not. There was no clear clinical predictor for the development or resolution of AKI. Despite resolution of most AKI episodes, a gradual and significant increase in serum creatinine and a gradual reduction in mean arterial pressure were observed during follow-up, associated with a significant reduction in survival compared with non-AKI patients.ConclusionMinor increases in serum creatinine are clinically relevant and can adversely affect survival. Every effort should be made to avoid precipitation of AKI in cirrhosis and ascites.

PMID: 22637695 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Link to Article at PubMed

Case fatality rate with pulmonary embolectomy for acute pulmonary embolism.

Am J Med Start a Discussion »

May 292012

Case fatality rate with pulmonary embolectomy for acute pulmonary embolism.

Am J Med. 2012 May;125(5):471-7

Authors: Stein PD, Matta F

Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are insufficient data to assess the potential role of pulmonary embolectomy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
METHODS: In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate with pulmonary embolectomy was assessed from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1999 through 2008.
RESULTS: Among unstable patients (in shock or ventilator-dependent), case fatality rate with embolectomy was 380 of 950 (40%). Among stable patients, case fatality rate was lower: 690 of 2820 (24%) (P <.0001). Case fatality rate in unstable patients was 39% in 1999-2003 and 40% in 2004-2008 (not significant), and in stable patients it was 27% in 1999-2003 and 23% in 2004-2008 (P=.01). Case fatality rates were lower in patients with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and even lower in patients with a primary diagnosis who had none of the comorbid conditions listed in the Charlson Index. Within each stratified group, patients with vena cava filters had a lower case fatality rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Case fatality rate in unstable patients who underwent pulmonary embolectomy remained at 39%-40% from 1999-2003 to 2004-2008, and in stable patients it decreased only from 27% to 23%. Case fatality rates were lower in those with fewer comorbid conditions and in those who received a vena cava filter. Our data reflect average outcome in the US. It may be that experienced surgeons and an aggressive multidisciplinary team could obtain a lower case fatality rate.

PMID: 22482845 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Link to Article at PubMed

Thrombolytic therapy in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: saves lives but underused.

Am J Med Start a Discussion »

May 292012

Thrombolytic therapy in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: saves lives but underused.

Am J Med. 2012 May;125(5):465-70

Authors: Stein PD, Matta F

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data are sparse and inconsistent regarding whether thrombolytic therapy reduces case fatality rate in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism. We tested the hypothesis that thrombolytic therapy reduces case fatality rate in such patients.
METHODS: In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate according to treatment was determined in unstable patients with pulmonary embolism who were discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States from 1999 to 2008 by using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Unstable patients were in shock or ventilator dependent.
RESULTS: Among unstable patients with pulmonary embolism, 21,390 of 72,230 (30%) received thrombolytic therapy. In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate in unstable patients with thrombolytic therapy was 3105 of 21,390 (15%) versus 23,820 of 50,840 (47%) without thrombolytic therapy (P<.0001). All-cause case fatality rate in unstable patients with thrombolytic therapy plus a vena cava filter was 505 of 6630 (7.6%) versus 4260 of 12,850 (33%) with a filter alone (P<.0001). Case fatality rate attributable to pulmonary embolism in unstable patients was 820 of 9810 (8.4%) with thrombolytic therapy versus 1080 of 2600 (42%) with no thrombolytic therapy (P<.0001). Case fatality rate attributable to pulmonary embolism in unstable patients with thrombolytic therapy plus vena cava filter was 70 of 2590 (2.7%) versus 160 of 600 (27%) with a filter alone (P<.0001).
CONCLUSION: In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate and case fatality rate attributable to pulmonary embolism in unstable patients was lower in those who received thrombolytic therapy. Thrombolytic therapy resulted in a lower case fatality rate than using vena cava filters alone, and the combination resulted in an even lower case fatality rate. Thrombolytic therapy in combination with a vena cava filter in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism seems indicated.

PMID: 22325236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Link to Article at PubMed

Impact of vena cava filters on in-hospital case fatality rate from pulmonary embolism.

Am J Med Start a Discussion »

May 292012

Impact of vena cava filters on in-hospital case fatality rate from pulmonary embolism.

Am J Med. 2012 May;125(5):478-84

Authors: Stein PD, Matta F, Keyes DC, Willyerd GL

Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of vena cava filters on case fatality rate are not clear, although they are used increasingly in patients with pulmonary embolism. The purpose of this investigation is to determine categories of patients with pulmonary embolism in whom vena cava filters reduce in-hospital case fatality rate.
METHODS: In-hospital all-cause case fatality rate according to the use of vena cava filters was determined in patients with pulmonary embolism discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.
RESULTS: In-hospital case fatality rate was marginally lower in stable patients who received a vena cava filter: 21,420 of 297,700 (7.2%) versus 135,240 of 1,712,800 (7.9%) (P<.0001). Filters did not improve in-hospital case fatality rate if deep venous thrombosis was diagnosed in stable patients. A few stable patients (1.4%) received thrombolytic therapy. Such patients who received a vena cava filter had a lower case fatality rate than those who did not: 550 of 8550 (6.4%) versus 2950 of 19,050 (15%) (P<.0001). Unstable patients who received thrombolytic therapy had a lower in-hospital case fatality rate with vena cava filters than those who did not: 505 of 6630 (7.6%) versus 2600 of 14,760 (18%) (P<.0001). Unstable patients who did not receive thrombolytic therapy also had a lower in-hospital case fatality rate with a vena cava filter: 4260 of 12,850 (33%) versus 19,560 of 38,000 (51%) (P<.0001).
CONCLUSION: At present, it seems prudent to consider a vena cava filter in patients with pulmonary embolism who are receiving thrombolytic therapy and in unstable patients who may not be candidates for thrombolytic therapy. Future prospective study is warranted to better define in which patients a filter is appropriate.

PMID: 22310013 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Link to Article at PubMed

Chlorhexidine bathing to reduce central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection: impact and sustainability.

Am J Med Start a Discussion »

May 292012

Chlorhexidine bathing to reduce central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection: impact and sustainability.

Am J Med. 2012 May;125(5):505-11

Authors: Montecalvo MA, McKenna D, Yarrish R, Mack L, Maguire G, Haas J, DeLorenzo L, Dellarocco N, Savatteri B, Rosenthal A, Watson A, Spicehandler D, Shi Q, Visintainer P, Wormser GP

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine bathing has been associated with reductions in healthcare-associated bloodstream infection. To determine the impact and sustainability of the effect of chlorhexidine bathing on central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection, we performed a prospective, 3-phase, multiple-hospital study.
METHODS: In the medical intensive care unit and the respiratory care unit of a tertiary care hospital and the medical-surgical intensive care units of 4 community hospitals, rates of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection were collected prospectively for each period. Pre-intervention (phase 1) patients were bathed with soap and water or nonmedicated bathing cloths; active intervention (phase 2) patients were bathed with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloths with the number of baths administered and skin tolerability assessed; post-intervention (phase 3) chlorhexidine bathing was continued but without oversight by research personnel. Central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection rates were compared over study periods using Poisson regression.
RESULTS: Compared with pre-intervention, during active intervention there were significantly fewer central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections (6.4/1000 central venous catheter days vs 2.6/1000 central venous catheter days, relative risk, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.68; P<.001), and this reduction was sustained during post-intervention (2.9/1000 central venous catheter days; relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.70; P<.001). During the active intervention period, compliance with chlorhexidine bathing was 82%. Few adverse events were observed.
CONCLUSION: In this multiple-hospital study, chlorhexidine bathing was associated with significant reductions in central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection, and these reductions were sustained post-intervention when chlorhexidine bathing was unmonitored. Chlorhexidine bathing was well tolerated and is a useful adjunct to reduce central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection.

PMID: 22482848 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Link to Article at PubMed

Older Entries

May 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr				Jun »
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31